tv [untitled] March 14, 2013 10:30am-11:00am PDT
the tjpa board of directors there is no items to be report. and 54957 b and,. the board did designated jane kim. >> and at this time, could we go to item number 12. >> authorizing the executive director to execute israel paout resolution, advisor, in order to implement the dra procedure referred to in the revised claim procedure set forth in the contract with the cm/gc for all... >> if you have any directors we have mike mckenan, and brian dikes. >> motion to approve this agreement? >> second. >> okay. >> so we do have a motion and a second. and no questions or comments from the board in >> seeing, none let's take roll call. >> no members of the public. >> lloyd. >> aye.
>> metcalf. naye. >> reiskin. >> aye. >> ortiz. >> aye. >> kim aye as well. >> that is 12 ayes. and item is amoved. and we will move on to the next item. >> approving the minutes of the february 14, 2013, meeting and no members of the public have indicated that they want to address you on this item. >> go ahead. >> so we have a motion from director lloyd, to approve and a second, the first and the second, director lloyd. >> aye. >> metcalf? >> aye. >> reiskin. >> aye. >> ortiz. >> aye. >> kim. >> aye. >> that is five ayes and the minutes ar proved. >> thank you, >> at this time, we will move on to item 14, which is a continuation of the presentation of the proposed revision to the phase one base line budget for the transbay, this is continuation from last month, where we actually just
ran of time and not able to complete this item and just no a note of information, we did have another item last month agenda that was on the dtx presentation. and high speed rail electrification and that is continued to april. >> bob will present on this item and members of the team. we listened carefully on the questions that you had on the subjects of the agenda that we got through and today we are going to answer the questions and finish what we were not able to get through and going to give you some information as you know at the last board meeting we did not yet have the information on the structural steel bid and that has come in. so we are going to give you information on that and finally, we are going to let the board know what we will be recommending at the march 25th board meeting in light of the new information that we received, which we will report on in a moment, bob? >> thank you. >> members of the board.
so, to, pick up where we left off, last month, we are going to go through an update of the budget, the factors that are influencing costs at this time, and a preliminary recommendations for an adjustment in the budget. so, i will touch briefly on the february 14th, presentation, invite, denise signs of urs who assisted us in the preparation of the rba to come up and speak to that process in a little bit more depth than we covered last month. and then, move on to the recommended adjustments and our funding strategies. from our meeting last month, this was our agenda, as weed put it up and made it through two-thirds of that before getting to the conclusions of the recommendations of
adjusting the budget. and as a reminder our current budget adopted in may of 2010, is 1.598 billion and you see the categories of costs and expenses. and summaryized here. >> in working through the process and design to this point, in adopting the original phase of the current phase one budget and accepting the ura grand, we realized that $100 million in savings by switching from the top down, to bottom up instruction approach, but also to stay within the budget to date, as we have incorporated additional design features and the park and scope, not originally proposed in the park, in the project, we have accomplished more than 100
million, in value engineering and deductive alternates that have been incorporated into the documents. the remaining scope of construction provides limited additional opportunities for value engineering and significance co-productions. and the increasing activity in the construction market is also creating cost pressure that makes additional reductions in the scope and cost going forward limited. just to illustrate that point, our estimate for the balance of construction is roughly $500 million. but, almost a third of that is in the super structure, steel and concrete, that we are bidding right now and that the balance is spread, across a number of cost categories.
but the ability to make significant costs or significant changes in the design of those system to reduce the cost is limited, the one area that we will be talking about today, that clark is here to speak to is a proposal to revise the awning system design and switching that from a glass to a metal material which does have the potential for us to reduce the cost of that system by $17 and a half million in total including both direct costs and risk and vunerbility assessment related costs. on the rva, last month, you heard from bob ducabela. he is with the bbs security. he is the d, in dvs.
and he has an extensive experience in the security industry, and has been responsible for protective design solutions at the world trade center site and the pen station, and the monahan station and washington's union station, and the amtrak and the command and control center and the portable in new york and the airport and the un and work with the nypd counter terrorism division and new york protective design standards. also, and dvs, in the role of our design and of the rva update has been working as the tjpa as the owner's representative, urs, and i will introduce the science who led that team and acted as the consultant to recommend the
design criteria and the dvs led the consulting to the tjpa to make sure that the recommendations coming from urs, were reasonable and prudent. and did not not over or under address, the concerns and the nature of the facility and more appropriate for the nature of the facility. widening the associates and specializes in particular, on structural and blast analysis, and vehicle force protection. they have one in 64 years of experience, in that arena since experience with federal laboratories, courthouses embassies, as well as working on the pentagon and many of the same facilities in the city of
new york, where dvs has addressed general security issues. they have focused on blast and force protection on those facilities. also as part of the peer review and consulting team to tjpa is code consultants ink. cci, and they focus particularly on fire protection and fire life safety issues and were extensively involved in the peer review of the bus fire and train fire scenarios, designed basis fire, designations. in addition to cci, we do have a two-person fire design peer review panel that was selected by the san francisco fire department to provide them with expert advice on the smoke analysis being performed at the
station, particularly the comp utation, fluid analysis of how the smoke would be propagated and behave over time in the event of a bus or a train fire. also it is significant to note that we have the structural and seismic review committee that has been working with the tjpa and the department of building inspection since the beginning of the project, looking at the structural performance of the building, particularly, in seismic events, code-related is issues, but is also taken a look at some of the blast-related discussions. >> so, with that, i am going to ask dennis signs of urs to come up and speak a little bit to the rba process. dennis is with the urs corporation and has 30 years of experience in anti-terrorism
force protection and physical security. specializes in vunerbility threat and risk assessments and counter terrorism measures. for both state, federal, local, and international clients for rail, subway, bus, tunnel, bridge and air transportation facilities. so with that, i will turn it over to dennis to talk more about the rba. >> before dennis comes up i am looking at the length of the presentation, some of it was presented to the board in terms of why we, or the staff believes that this terminal is an important site for the additional security protections. so i would like you to go through it still, but if we could condense it down and abbreviate it and leave it open for questions from board members that would be re